Advance Single for a Lumo Train that no longer exists

[Starmill]

I think it’s questionable whether a right to be rerouted can be taken to mean a right to just board another operator’s service.

It could also mean a long distance taxi or bus journey yes. But of course this is likely to be more costly for Lumo given they appear to have put no arrangements in place in advance, so would be paying an on the spot rate.

 

[danielcanning]

I think it’s questionable whether a right to be rerouted can be taken to mean a right to just board another operator’s service.

If it ever did make it to court any right thinking judge would take ‘a right to be rerouted’ to mean travel on an alternate train and not by road…

 

[Haywain]

If it ever did make it to court any right thinking judge would take ‘a right to be rerouted’ to mean travel on an alternate train and not by road…

Without the alternative train operator being paid? I doubt that.

 

[Starmill]

If it ever did make it to court any right thinking judge would take ‘a right to be rerouted’ to mean travel on an alternate train and not by road…

If Lumo can't agree ticket acceptance with LNER, they can always just put people on LNER at public prices while there are free seats still on the LNER service. It's likely to be cheaper to do that than using taxis would be.

Of course, I accept it's possible Lumo have arranged a bus or whatever, and just not communicated.

 

[JonathanH]

Or it's a way to save money on not having to book a hotel in Edinburgh for the staff who would be on the 06:14 from Edinburgh (and those who worked the train into Edinburgh assuming it's not the same staff).

Confirmed in another thread that it is an engineering possession issue that prevents the weekday 2018 from Kings Cross going north of Newcastle for six weeks, with knock on consequences for the morning train.

 

[Snow1964]

Confirmed in another thread that it is an engineering possession issue that prevents the weekday 2018 from Kings Cross going north of Newcastle for six weeks, with knock on consequences for the morning train.

So if engineering works mean the train is being replaced by a rail replacement bus, then is’t there an obligation to provide a bus and re-time the train so the bus connects. Or am I missing something.

There is the old style approach (go via Carlisle instead), so not getting the train positioned for its southbound run just seems like penny pinching at customers inconvenience

 

[JonathanH]

So if engineering works mean the train is being replaced by a rail replacement bus, then is’t there an obligation to provide a bus and re-time the train so the bus connects. Or am I missing something.

It isn't being replaced by a bus. It is a planned cancellation and, other than for passengers who have already booked, Lumo don't appear to need to do anything, other than suggest that passengers catch an alternative Lumo service.

There is the old style approach (go via Carlisle instead), so not getting the train positioned for its southbound run just seems like penny pinching at customers inconvenience

Not with an electric only unit (and even if they had a diesel unit and the Tyne Valley was open it would arrive in Edinburgh around 0230). If Network Rail say the route is blocked for engineering, Lumo just withdraw the service.

What are they supposed to do? They schedule a service that leaves Kings Cross at 2018, departing Newcastle at 2308 and Network Rail say the line is blocked for six weeks on Monday to Thursday. They can't leave London earlier or run quicker. Ultimately they just have to cancel the train, with repercussions for the morning service.

 

[Watershed]

I think it’s questionable whether a right to be rerouted can be taken to mean a right to just board another operator’s service.

I'm not saying you should simply board without doing anything or asking anyone for assistance.

But the fact that money may need to change hands for the rerouting to be arranged is neither here nor there. And unless there is a very good reason why rerouting cannot be arranged on LNER (e.g. LNER services are suspended due to disruption), Lumo are likely to be required to reroute passengers onto LNER when their services are cancelled.

 

[Haywain]

Lumo just withdraw the service.

And leave other companies to take the flak!

 

[Starmill]

Under normal circumstances, if there's not a clear provision for replacement transport, as there wouldn't be in this case, the operator must refuse the request for access and the train runs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What are they supposed to do? They schedule a service that leaves Kings Cross at 2018, departing Newcastle at 2308 and Network Rail say the line is blocked for six weeks on Monday to Thursday. They can't leave London earlier or run quicker. Ultimately they just have to cancel the train, with repercussions for the morning service.

Run a bus? Arrange something with another TOC? Not open trains for booking until they know they will run?

 

[JonathanH]

Run a bus? Arrange something with another TOC? Not open trains for booking until they know they will run?

It looks like passengers for the morning service are being directed to the 0606 Edinburgh to Plymouth. As for a bus connection off the 2018 from Kings Cross the bad publicity of getting passengers to Edinburgh at 0200 would probably be worse than directing passengers to earlier departures.

They do seem to be a bit of a hostage to fortune on being able to run their intended timetable given engineering possessions.

 

[Starmill]

Run a bus? Arrange something with another TOC? Not open trains for booking until they know they will run?

As I say under normal circumstances there should be no tickets sold until the timetable is confirmed, and any late requests are likely to be refused if there's no practical alternative. The trouble lies in Lumo selling tickets too early, and the window for getting the plan in place being compressed too much.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It looks like passengers for the morning service are being directed to the 0606 Edinburgh to Plymouth.

Makes sense. They should probably stick that prominently on their website at a minimum, even if they won't sell any more tickets for it.

 

[Starmill]

They do seem to be a bit of a hostage to fortune on being able to run their intended timetable given engineering possessions.

Is this really true? They are the ones who put the tickets on sale before the plan was agreed. You can argue that the plan needs to be agreed earlier but that just leads back to the same question of why it is not being.

Most people are criticising the customer service provided by Lumo and / or ticket sellers. I think you're wrong to imply that people are criticising Network Rail for taking the engineering possessions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this really true? They are the ones who put the tickets on sale before the plan was agreed. You can argue that the plan needs to be agreed earlier but that just leads back to the same question of why it is not being.

Most people are criticising the customer service provided by Lumo and / or ticket sellers. I think you're wrong to imply that people are criticising Network Rail for taking the engineering possessions.

Yes, I'm criticising Lumo for putting trains on sale they didn't know they could run. One advantage of the compulsory reservation flag being used as it presently is is that you can block trains that might not run, which means this situation doesn't arise as people can't buy tickets on them and so can't plan to use them, and is an aspect of the CR flag use I'd like to see stay in place when developing a long-term approach to this. With optional reservation services you couldn't prevent someone selecting a walk-up fare on that train.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, I'm criticising Lumo for putting trains on sale they didn't know they could run. One advantage of the compulsory reservation flag being used as it presently is is that you can block trains that might not run, which means this situation doesn't arise as people can't buy tickets on them and so can't plan to use them, and is an aspect of the CR flag use I'd like to see stay in place when developing a long-term approach to this. With optional reservation services you couldn't prevent someone selecting a walk-up fare on that train.

To be fair that can pretty much be done anyway by putting the services in as undervertised, which is something that has happened for many years where there's doubt about only a handful of trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair that can pretty much be done anyway by putting the services in as undervertised, which is something that has happened for many years where there's doubt about only a handful of trains.

In some ways I would say I find it more helpful for them to be visible with a sort of "we think we'll run this, we expect to confirm if we can or not by <date>" message. But what you say is another option.

 

[62484GlenLyon]

Does anybody know if this 6 week run of possessions is a one-off in connection with a special project or normal midweek overnight blocks that will occur again from time to time? If the latter then one hopes that Lumo will work out a sensible solution for the issue discussed in this thread.

 

[Haywain]

They do seem to be a bit of a hostage to fortune on being able to run their intended timetable given engineering possessions.

Well, they applied for the paths so can’t really complain.

Does anybody know if this 6 week run of possessions is a one-off in connection with a special project or normal midweek overnight blocks that will occur again from time to time? If the latter then one hopes that Lumo will work out a sensible solution for the issue discussed in this thread.

Things like this happen quite often. With the paths Lumo have this will happen fairly regularly.

 

[pdq]

Things like this happen quite often. With the paths Lumo have this will happen fairly regularly.

In which case, shouldn't they have contingency processes in place, that include appropriate communication with potential travellers?

 

[danielcanning]

I do have to say, the open access operators seem to be a law unto themselves regarding customer protection, this needs to be sorted ASAP.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do have to say, the open access operators seem to be a law unto themselves regarding customer protection, this needs to be sorted ASAP.

I suppose Lumo did want to go into the Ryanair market, but behaving like them is a bit far.

(To be fair to Ryanair, if your flight is cancelled you do get an immediate email)

 

[Starmill]

In which case, shouldn't they have contingency processes in place, that include appropriate communication with potential travellers?

Yes. And also they should not open reservation until after the plan has been agreed!

 

[Snow1964]

Yes. And also they should not open reservation until after the plan has been agreed!

Wasn‘t it written somewhere in the rail privatisation Act that the network Operator had to give about 14 weeks notice, so that tickets could be sold for at least 12 weeks without changes. If this legislation has been amended then I apologise for getting it wrong.

It seems to me if plan was late, Operator shouldn’t have agreed to it (but I guess it is not easy complaining), and Rail Regulator should be enforcing the rules to avoid the Operator having a conflict of interest about complaining

 

[Starmill]

The problem is chronic lack of resources versus the demands of planning. It will take years to get back to the twelve weeks across the board as a result of near collapse of the profession in March 2020.

 

[Haywain]

The problem is chronic lack of resources versus the demands of planning. It will take years to get back to the twelve weeks across the board as a result of near collapse of the profession in March 2020.

To be fair it predates March 2020 - meeting the 12 weeks was already a problem prior to that and much of it dates from moving Network Rail's HQ to Milton Keynes and failing to keep all the existing and experienced staff.

 

[Snow1964]

The problem is chronic lack of resources versus the demands of planning. It will take years to get back to the twelve weeks across the board as a result of near collapse of the profession in March 2020.

Irrelevant,
Lumo was granted its open access more recently than March 2020 so historic problems before the date of issue are not it’s problem and the local network rail team has to abide by what was granted at time of issue of its open access.

I accept that others operators might have to wait, but they aren’t subject to recently issued access rights that legally supersede what might have been accepted by the industry 2-4 years ago.

 

[Starmill]

To be fair it predates March 2020 - meeting the 12 weeks was already a problem prior to that and much of it dates from moving Network Rail's HQ to Milton Keynes and failing to keep all the existing and experienced staff.

Very true. It was problematic indeed before 2018, and very difficult for some operators after the May 2018 change date and before March 2020 anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2022 ==

Irrelevant,
Lumo was granted its open access more recently than March 2020 so historic problems before the date of issue are not it’s problem and the local network rail team has to abide by what was granted at time of issue of its open access.

I accept that others operators might have to wait, but they aren’t subject to recently issued access rights that legally supersede what might have been accepted by the industry 2-3 years ago.

What makes you think it's irrelevant? If Network Rail cannot meet the dates for FOCs and LNER, why would they be able to for Lumo? Unfortunately Network Rail cannot cover all of the work, and have not been able to for many years now, as Haywain points out. Also, newer firm rights do not take a priority over existing firm rights. Indeed, if any dispute occurs, existing rights are given greater priority.

 

[Snow1964]

Very true. It was problematic indeed before 2018, and very difficult for some operators after the May 2018 change date and before March 2020 anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2022 ==


What makes you think it's irrelevant? If Network Rail cannot meet the dates for FOCs and LNER, why would they be able to for Lumo? Unfortunately Network Rail cannot cover all of the work, and have not been able to for many years now, as Haywain points out. Also, newer firm rights do not take a priority over existing firm rights. Indeed, if any dispute occurs, existing rights are given greater priority.

I was basing it on the legal status
If rights are agreed legally then whatever is agreed applies, you can’t legally use the argument that your competitors agreed to lesser rights in the past, so you need to abide by what they get.

If the track provider signed the rights and didn’t get a lower time period agreed then they should abide by what the signed up to even if it is a struggle to do so. Basic contract law, you don’t sign up to a contract that you have no intention of abiding by. If every business took that attitude, contracts fall apart everywhere.

To explain further if everyone else agreed to 6 weeks notice 3-4 years ago, then someone comes along and gets a new agreement with 12 weeks notice, their new agreement is valid even if it means there are now two levels of service to be provided